Antigua and Barbuda vs Indonesia: Men's universal right to vote

Antigua and Barbuda
1
in 2025
Indonesia
1
in 2025
Antigua and Barbuda rank
1st
Indonesia rank
1st

Men's universal right to vote over time

  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Indonesia
00.20.40.60.81180019122025

How they compare

Antigua and Barbuda currently reports 1 against 1 in Indonesia, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 75 shared years of data; in 1951 it was Antigua and Barbuda ahead.

Antigua and Barbuda ranks 1st and Indonesia ranks 1st of 197 countries.

Antigua and Barbuda has averaged higher in every one of the 8 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Antigua and Barbuda Indonesia Difference Ahead
1950s 1 0.7778 0.2222 Antigua and Barbuda
1960s 1 1 0 β€”
1970s 1 1 0 β€”
1980s 1 1 0 β€”
1990s 1 1 0 β€”
2000s 1 1 0 β€”
2010s 1 1 0 β€”
2020s 1 1 0 β€”

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher men's universal right to vote, Antigua and Barbuda or Indonesia?
Antigua and Barbuda, at 1 against 1 in Indonesia as of 2025.
What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between Antigua and Barbuda and Indonesia?
0, with Antigua and Barbuda ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Antigua and Barbuda and Indonesia?
75 years are reported by both, from 1951 to 2025.
How do Antigua and Barbuda and Indonesia rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
Antigua and Barbuda ranks 1st and Indonesia ranks 1st of 197 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Lexical Index (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Men's universal right to vote. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Men's universal right to vote
Source
Lexical Index (2026) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
198 places, 32,485 data points, 1789–2025
Last refreshed

Indicates whether all men are allowed to vote in national elections. It neither considers informal restrictions nor legal restrictions based on age, criminal conviction, disability, and local residency.